Laura Campbell-Sills1, Patrick J Flynn2, Karmel W Choi3,4,5,6, Tsz Hin H Ng7,8, Pablo A Aliaga7,8, Catherine Broshek7,8, Sonia Jain9, Ronald C Kessler10, Murray B Stein1,9,11, Robert J Ursano7, Paul D Bliese12. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. Department of Management, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, Poole College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Psychiatric and Neurodevelopmental Genetics Unit, Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, Broad Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 10. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 11. VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USA. 12. Department of Management, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unit cohesion may protect service member mental health by mitigating effects of combat exposure; however, questions remain about the origins of potential stress-buffering effects. We examined buffering effects associated with two forms of unit cohesion (peer-oriented horizontal cohesion and subordinate-leader vertical cohesion) defined as either individual-level or aggregated unit-level variables. METHODS: Longitudinal survey data from US Army soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 were analyzed using mixed-effects regression. Models evaluated individual- and unit-level interaction effects of combat exposure and cohesion during deployment on symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and suicidal ideation reported at 3 months post-deployment (model n's = 6684 to 6826). Given the small effective sample size (k = 89), the significance of unit-level interactions was evaluated at a 90% confidence level. RESULTS: At the individual-level, buffering effects of horizontal cohesion were found for PTSD symptoms [B = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.18 to -0.04), p < 0.01] and depressive symptoms [B = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.10 to -0.01), p < 0.05]; while a buffering effect of vertical cohesion was observed for PTSD symptoms only [B = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.06 to -0.0001), p < 0.05]. At the unit-level, buffering effects of horizontal (but not vertical) cohesion were observed for PTSD symptoms [B = -0.91, 90% CI (-1.70 to -0.11), p = 0.06], depressive symptoms [B = -0.83, 90% CI (-1.24 to -0.41), p < 0.01], and suicidal ideation [B = -0.32, 90% CI (-0.62 to -0.01), p = 0.08]. CONCLUSIONS: Policies and interventions that enhance horizontal cohesion may protect combat-exposed units against post-deployment mental health problems. Efforts to support individual soldiers who report low levels of horizontal or vertical cohesion may also yield mental health benefits.
BACKGROUND: Unit cohesion may protect service member mental health by mitigating effects of combat exposure; however, questions remain about the origins of potential stress-buffering effects. We examined buffering effects associated with two forms of unit cohesion (peer-oriented horizontal cohesion and subordinate-leader vertical cohesion) defined as either individual-level or aggregated unit-level variables. METHODS: Longitudinal survey data from US Army soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 were analyzed using mixed-effects regression. Models evaluated individual- and unit-level interaction effects of combat exposure and cohesion during deployment on symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and suicidal ideation reported at 3 months post-deployment (model n's = 6684 to 6826). Given the small effective sample size (k = 89), the significance of unit-level interactions was evaluated at a 90% confidence level. RESULTS: At the individual-level, buffering effects of horizontal cohesion were found for PTSD symptoms [B = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.18 to -0.04), p < 0.01] and depressive symptoms [B = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.10 to -0.01), p < 0.05]; while a buffering effect of vertical cohesion was observed for PTSD symptoms only [B = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.06 to -0.0001), p < 0.05]. At the unit-level, buffering effects of horizontal (but not vertical) cohesion were observed for PTSD symptoms [B = -0.91, 90% CI (-1.70 to -0.11), p = 0.06], depressive symptoms [B = -0.83, 90% CI (-1.24 to -0.41), p < 0.01], and suicidal ideation [B = -0.32, 90% CI (-0.62 to -0.01), p = 0.08]. CONCLUSIONS: Policies and interventions that enhance horizontal cohesion may protect combat-exposed units against post-deployment mental health problems. Efforts to support individual soldiers who report low levels of horizontal or vertical cohesion may also yield mental health benefits.
Authors: Laura Campbell-Sills; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler; Xiaoying Sun; Steven G Heeringa; Matthew K Nock; Nancy A Sampson; Sonia Jain; Murray B Stein Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Lauren Anderson; Laura Campbell-Sills; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler; Xiaoying Sun; Steven G Heeringa; Matthew K Nock; Paul D Bliese; Oscar I Gonzalez; Gary H Wynn; Sonia Jain; Murray B Stein Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Kelly Posner; Gregory K Brown; Barbara Stanley; David A Brent; Kseniya V Yershova; Maria A Oquendo; Glenn W Currier; Glenn A Melvin; Laurence Greenhill; Sa Shen; J John Mann Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: T Browne; A Iversen; L Hull; L Workman; C Barker; O Horn; M Jones; D Murphy; N Greenberg; R Rona; M Hotopf; S Wessely; N T Fear Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Matthew K Nock; Charlene A Deming; Carol S Fullerton; Stephen E Gilman; Matthew Goldenberg; Ronald C Kessler; James E McCarroll; Katie A McLaughlin; Christopher Peterson; Michael Schoenbaum; Barbara Stanley; Robert J Ursano Journal: Psychiatry Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Anna C Rivera; Cynthia A LeardMann; Rudolph P Rull; Adam Cooper; Steve Warner; Dennis Faix; Edwin Deagle; Rob Neff; Ryan Caserta; Amy B Adler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Amanda J Khan; Laura Campbell-Sills; Xiaoying Sun; Ronald C Kessler; Amy B Adler; Sonia Jain; Robert J Ursano; Murray B Stein Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01